L.N.K 356 Puna Ram Chutia Vs. State of Assam - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 6. i have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned p. condemn k. s.k. kar, j.1. this is an appeal filed by l.n.k. 356 shri puna ram chutia, against judgment of conviction and sentence passed by sessions judge, darrang, mangaldoi, on 29.9.2000 is sessions case no. 73(d-m) of 1997. by the impugned judgment the appellant was convicted for offence under section 25(i)(a) of arms act, 1959 and sentenced r. i. for 3 years alongwith a fine of rs. 100 (rupees on hundred) and in default of fine to further r.i. for 1 (one) month.2. facts of the case, in short, are as follows :platoon commander 3rd aptf bn. absi, hem ram bora lodged a written fir on 20,9.1989 at 11.00 p.m. against the appellant/accused stating that as per verbal instruction of the asstt. commandant the personal steel trunk belonging the appellant was opened and it was found that the trunk.....

Judgment:

S.K. Kar, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by L.N.K. 356 Shri Puna Ram Chutia, against judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi, on 29.9.2000 is sessions Case No. 73(D-M) of 1997. By the impugned judgment the appellant was convicted for offence Under Section 25(I)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced R. I. for 3 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 100 (Rupees on hundred) and in default of fine to further R.I. for 1 (one) month.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are as follows :

Platoon Commander 3rd APTF Bn. ABSI, Hem Ram Bora lodged a written FIR on 20,9.1989 at 11.00 p.m. against the appellant/accused stating that as per verbal instruction of the Asstt. Commandant the personal steel trunk belonging the appellant was opened and it was found that the trunk contained some blank and live cartridges along with the clothes belonging to the appellant who went on leave from 7.1.1989 for 15 days but did not return to his duties till the date of discovery of ammunitions inside his steel trunk stated to be due to illness etc.

3. A case Under Section. 25(IA)(IAA)/27 of the Arms Act was registered and on completion of the investigation chargesheet was submitted against accused person/appellant.

4. Trial proceeded against appellant framing charges Under Section. 25(I)(a), 25(IA)(IAA)/27 of the Arms Act. Appellant pleading not guilty to the charges. All together 6 (six) witnesses were examined from the prosecution.

5. Defence plea during the trial is that the appellant was on leave from 7.1.1989 and could not joint his duty as he was suffering from T. B. That he left the key of the personal box (trunk) with one Habildar and in spite of receiving notice to join service he could not do so due to his illness and after about 9 (nine) months of going on leave he came to know that, a case has been filed against him. He joined his duty in November, 1989 and he was arrested. The appellant contended that he had no knowledge how the incriminating substance came within his box.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned P.P. Assam, Mr. F. H. Laskar and considered the materials on record.

7. The appellant during his trial had not disputed the ownership of the steel trunk/box and took the plea that when he left the camp he handed over the key to one Havildar. It is also not in dispute that for quite a long period of about 9 (nine) months the appellant could not report to his duty at the station of posting due to his illness. It is also not in dispute that when the trunk was opened the accused was not present.

8. It will be relevant to look into contains of the seizure list which is supposed to be the incriminating materials against the appellant. The contains of the same goes as follows :

'Description of the steel trunk and cartridges, etc.

1. One 22' inches steel trunk with one 'Liberty' lock but hook is opened (upperside). In front, upper portion of the trunk letter '141 P. Chutia' has been written in black paint.

2. 3 Nos. of live K. F. 50 G. R. Cartridges.

3. 1 (one) No. of live K. F. 55 GR Ballistite.

4. 1 (one) No. of live K. F. 50, 50 G.R. Ballistite.

5. 4 (four) Nos. condemn K.F. 50 G.R. Cartridges.'

In the FIR, Ext. 2, also it was stated that when the box was brought to be deposited in the office and hook of the lock was removed and it was found that the box contained some cartridges alongwith the clothes and official uniform of the appellant. The I.O, P.W. 6 deposed that he had no memory whether the box was under lock and key when the same was seized him, P.W. 6 also admitted the appellant was not present when seizure of box was made and the seized articles were not produced before the trial Court. It is also in the evidence of the PWs examined in the case that the cartridges were mostly blank except a few as per the armourer's report. But facts remain that the armouer's report was not formally proved by calling the armourer as a witness of this case. Learned trial court has observed in the judgment as follows :

'Now, though there is some contradiction about the damaged or unusing cartridges yet it is fully confirmed by the armour's report Ext. 3 that most of the cartridges were found on examination by him as live.'

During the defence, as recorded in the impugned judgment at para 23, the appellant took a plea of possibility of false implication and made definite assertions that he never retained any incriminating ammunitions inside the trunk. Learned court below also observed the appellant as 'sobre and gentle' in his behaviour.

9. Be that as it may, it is upon the prosecution to establish the charge on the basis of the evidence on record. It will be seen that trunk in question which was seized vide ext. 1, was accessible also to persons other than the appellant at the relevant time and place and it was found at the time of seizure not under lock and key. The prosecution has not been able to establish the fact that the incriminating ammunition were consciously obtained and retained by the appellant in his box. There is no evidence of any overt act of concealment of the trunk/box. The doubt that some body else could have put it inside the box has not been removed by the prosecution. It is not legally established that there were live cartridges in addition to blank cartridges by examining the armourer who examined the cartridges. I find that the evidence is not sufficient to implicate the appellant with the allegation of possessing ammunitions without permission or licence and accordingly he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. It is neither natural that a culprit will leave behind him the box with incriminating materials when went on leave handing over the keys to a co-worker.

10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant/accused is acquitted of the charges Under Section 25(I)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 and is set a liberty setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2000. His bail bond stands discharged.